Introduction:
Seventh-day Adventists have been challenged to defend the doctrine of an investigative judgment. This challenge made by Dr. Desmond Ford has been echoed by many. It was restated in a letter of Dr. Ford’s published in the March 19, 1990, Christianity Today. The letter (excerpted below) begins by congratulating CT on their February 5, article entitled “The Recent Truth About Seventh-day Adventism”:
“Congratulations for publishing Kenneth Samples’ article. It is perceptive, accurate, and sympathetic. For a century and a half, SDAs have challenged the rest of Christendom in two areas: (1) Give one New Testament text that proves God has sanctified Sunday as the Christian Sabbath; (2) Give one Bible verse that proves soul or spirit can function without a body.
“I endorse these challenges from Adventism. Let me now challenge the challengers: Give me, from the Bible and the Bible alone, proof about the doctrine of 1844 and the Investigative Judgment. I invite the SDA church to appoint a representative to discuss this topic with me over public media (at no cost to SDAs). I challenge the church leaders to deal with their presupposition that the Bible predicted Adventism’s rise in 1844 and that the Last Judgment then began….”
Since the days of Glacier View (1980) the challenge to biblically defend the doctrine of the investigative judgment in public confrontation has apparently met with little response. One exception is that of Adventist layman, Z. Bertan (Bob) Schubert. On February 10 and 11, 1989, at the Trinity Christian Center in Riverside, California, he took on Dr. Ford in a public debate. Bob advertised the event as “Glacier View II” and didn’t hide his view that a few small stones flung from the sling of truth would quickly fell the Goliath he was to face.
Since the subject of the debate dealt directly with the material presented in our last issue of Thinking Aloud, we felt it would be appropriate to give a brief review of the pertinent arguments presented. The Riverside confrontation revealed the real issues involved in challenging the doctrine of the investigative judgment.
It will be quickly noted that the contenders presented papers not directly opposed to one another. The debate was divided into three sessions–Hebrews, Daniel, and Revelation. At the end of each session a 10-minute rebuttal from each side was followed by a public question and answer period. Our report of this confrontation follows in outline form and does not pretend to be exhaustive:
THE RIVERSIDE CONFRONTATION
FRI PM – THE BOOK OF HEBREWS
Dr. Ford:
- No one believes what the SDA pioneers believed about the investigative judgment – that it began in 1844 and would be brief.
- The doctrine of an investigative judgment threatens the assurance of salvation and the joy of Christian experience.
- The idea that the forgiveness of sins is distinct from the blotting out of sins is blasphemy.
- In the last judgment believers are not tried by their works.
- Rather than making comparisons between type and antitype, the book of Hebrews continually makes contrasts.
- The book of Hebrews says nothing about a two-phase heavenly ministry of Christ.
- The old covenant was represented by the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary and the new covenant was represented by the second apartment (Heb. 9:8,9).
Mr. Schubert:
- Despite its use of contrasts the book of Hebrews also makes comparisons between the type and the antitype.
- To argue against the investigative judgment solely from the idea that God is omniscient or all knowing is to violate the facts (see Gen 22:12).
- The first biblical reference to judgment (Gen 3:9-13) gives the parameters of all of God’s judgments – God questions: Are you naked? Have you eaten? What have you done? The first question demands the righteousness of Christ; the second, obedience; and the third, good works. These are the elements of the final judgment also.
- Justification and judgment not only deal with one’s deeds but also with one’s person.
- The judgment doesn’t declare you righteous because you have become righteous but neither will it declare righteous those who only say they believe (Matt. 7:21-23).
- In both the parable of the ten virgins and that of the talents, those being judged are apparently all Christians (virgins, servants – Matt. 25).
- Hebrews 12 depicts the final judgment.
SAT AM – THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Mr. Schubert:
- History should not be used to define the interpretation of prophecy.
- The Aramaic portion of Daniel (Dan. 2-7) portrays a different view of prophecy from the Hebraic portion (Dan. 8-12). The former gives four great kingdoms followed by a Roman little horn; the latter has two great kingdoms followed by a Grecian little horn.
- God’s Plan “A” (Dan. 8-12) was to usher in “the end” at the completion of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9; but the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 shows God moving to Plan “B” (Dan. 2-7) with its “end” after the time of the Roman Empire.
- In Plan “B” the judgment was to take place in heaven at the end of the Roman little horn, around 1800 AD.
Dr. Ford:
- I agree wholeheartedly with Bob’s stress on the conditionality of prophecy – the world could have ended at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.
- The only thing from the Old Testament Jesus told his disciples they must understand is Daniel’s statement concerning “the abomination of desolation” which term refers to “the little horn.”
- The “little horn” represents the heathen not God’s people. “Judgment” in apocalyptic literature is always against the enemy.
- Daniel 8:14 does not use the word “days”; rather it refers to evening and morning sacrifices. ¨2300¨ divided by two sacrifices per day would equal 1150 days. The inference is to the approximately 1150 days that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple in Jerusalem before it was restored by the Maccabees.
SAT PM – THE BOOK OF REVELATION
Dr. Ford:
- The sealed book mentioned in Revelation 5 is the title deed to earth which is restored by Christ.
- The judgment spoken of in Revelation 14:6 is on the beast (Babylon) not on God’s people (see the words “hour” and “judgment” Rev 18:10).
- Judgment in the book of Revelation (as in all John’s writings) is only for those who reject the Christ of Calvary, never for the church.
Mr. Schubert:
- Revelation 22: 11-12 teaches that when Christ returns to earth, His rewards are with Him; therefore, judgment has already taken place.
- Romans 11:10 and Matthew 12:36, 37 teach that everyone, believers included, must appear in the judgment.
- No one appears before the judgment seat of Christ in a glorified
body because glorification is a reward. Therefore, judgment is prior to glorification.
Interpretive Summary
In the first session Dr. Ford dedicated a large portion of his time to what scholars say about the subject. He categorized a two-phase heavenly ministry of Christ as cultic and emphasized that such beliefs are based on inferences rather than clear biblical statements. In that same session Mr. Schubert barely touched the assigned topic of the book of Hebrews.
During the second session Mr. Schubert spent considerable time developing his unique (not traditionally SDA) view of God’s two plans in the book of Daniel. He emphasized man’s determinative role in bringing about the conclusion of prophecy. Dr. Ford spent the majority of his time attacking the traditional SDA interpretation of Daniel without offering much in the way of a new interpretation. Nevertheless, they were basically agreed about the book of Daniel.
In the final session Dr. Ford concentrated on the idea that God’s
people never come into judgment. When given the podium Mr. Schubert developed a new theory about three possible ends of the world as depicted in the “seals”, “trumpets”, and “vials” of Revelation.
Should a panel or the audience have been asked to judge the debate, Dr. Ford would have won, hands down. The issues involved are greater, however, than this debate. Can you or I afford to leave the real issues unsettled? I think not.
The Real Issues Involved
The doctrine of the investigative judgment is synonymous with the concept of a two-phase ministry of Christ in heaven. This concept holds “phase 1” to be the continual forgiveness of sins and “phase 2” to be the final blotting out of sins. This was mentioned but not dwelt on at the Riverside confrontation probably because one side was unprepared to defend it and the other side was happy to side-step the issue. The easy course was taken at Riverside – the contenders slid into the discussion of subjects with which they were more comfortable. However, we dare not, leave the real issues of the investigative judgment buried beneath the dust of peripheral matters. The question must be asked: Is the forgiveness of sins distinct from the blotting out of sins or are they one and the same thing?
1-PHASE MINISTRY
The blotting out of sins is distinct from the forgiveness of sins.
2-PHASE MINISTRY
The blotting out of sins is the same as the forgiveness of sins.
When in the Friday evening question and answer period Dr. Ford was asked about a judgment, he allowed for a pre-advent judgment as long as it was not investigative. Investigative means an examination of actions, words, and thoughts. Today the word accountability sums up this idea. The question is: Does the Bible teach a future accountability for God’s people or no future accountability?
1-PHASE MINISTRY
No future accountability for God’s people.
2-PHASE MINISTRY
A future accountability for God’s people.
Rejecting a two-phase ministry of Christ leads to the rejection of the idea of future accountability for believers. Dr. Ford’s challenge is not to Adventism alone but to all Christians who believe in a future day of reckoning.
